This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.



Your Ad Here

Monday, August 2, 2010

The "Good Morning ... **GOOD MORNING!!**" Fnord

I recently served on jury duty. I briefly considered bringing some FIJA pamphlets with me, but I didn't feel like getting myself arrested. This time, my goal was to get myself dismissed without actually serving on a jury. I would be missing out on my salary, for time spent on the jury. I figured "I understand jury nullification! I can think for myself!" would be sufficient to get myself disqualified. All the prospective jurors were dismissed, without even being questioned. In effect, I paid a tax of one day's salary, and the State didn't even derive any benefit.

My parents were concerned that I would be getting myself arrested, if I told the judge that I understood "jury nullification".

I was planning a detailed post on my jury duty experience. For a good laugh, watch the NYC jury duty propaganda film they showed us. I was a "petit juror", which meant criminal.

In the jury waiting room, a State bureaucrat gave us a briefing. He had the attitude of someone running detention in school. His attitude was "I get paid the same whether I do this quickly or slowly. Therefore, I'll take my time." It was an attitude I remember well from when I was in school.

The State bureaucrat did something very interesting. He said "Good morning, jurors!" A few people weakly responded "good morning". Then, he said "**GOOD MORNING, JURORS!!**" The second time, he got a louder response.

My reaction was "WTF? Is this school?" I remembered that, in school, the teacher or principal would say "Good Morning!", and get similarly angry when there was a weak response. This reflex was conditioned by years of public schooling.

I was shocked when I read this blog post by a criminal defense attorney.

“Good afternoon . . . GOOD AFTERNOON.”
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen a prosecutor NOT use this old chestnut to try to “warm up” the jury. They say “Good morning,” and when the jury doesn’t respond enthusiastically say something like “I know you can do better than that. Good morning!” or “I said, ‘Good morning!’” I wonder if this seems cute to the jurors, or just patronizing. Am I jaded from having seen it a hundred times?
He said "In nearly every criminal trial, the prosecutor uses the 'Good Morning...' trick." That blogger said it was merely an annoying thing that prosecutors do. In fact, it's a mind control trick. Do you see the evil fnord?

In a State brainwashing center, the teacher or principal uses the "Good Morning" trick to enforce discipline. By using this mind control trick, the prosecutor establishes himself as the equivalent of the teacher or principal! The prosecutor is setting himself up as the authority figure in the jurors' minds. There's another benefit. The prosecutor can eliminate people who don't give the conditioned response.

That blogger was offended by the "Good Morning" trick, but he didn't see the importance like I did. It's a mind control trick, establishing the authority of the prosecutor.

According to that blogger, most prosecutors use this trick. Did they discover it through trial and error? Is it part of the State brainwashing ritual? Did someone figure out "If teachers and prosecutors behave similarly, then it'll be easier to convict innocent people!" If every prosecutor does it, then someone is telling prosecutors to do it.

There are a lot of similarities between a court and a school or church.
  • The juror waiting room looks like a school auditorium.
  • The benches in a courtroom look like the benches in a church.
  • The people stand up or sit down when the priest/judge orders them to.
  • A priest wears black. A judge wears black.
  • A church prominently displays a cross, the symbol of God. A courtroom prominently displays a flag, the symbol of the State.
  • The judge's desk is like the altar of a church.
A courtroom is a church. The judge is the priest. A courtroom is a school. The prosecutor is the teacher or principal.

I noticed that some criminal defense attorney bloggers complain how the system is stacked against defendants. One says "Innocent until proven guilty is a lie. A defendant is acquitted only when he manages to overcome the presumption of guilt."

A lot of things in a courtroom are subtle mind control tricks. They establish the legitimacy of the judge and prosecutor. The "Good morning..." trick is used by prosecutors, to establish their authority.

14 comments:

dionysusal said...

FSK, What a coincidence! I had jury duty last week! I was actually picked for the jury, but I did something to get the judge to throw me out. I gave her a copy of the letter I sent in response to my jury duty notice. It contained some devastating questions, including an airtight syllogism proving there is no such thing as a "citizen" (you need to be a US citizen to be on a jury). The judge was not happy, but I didn't care. I could ill afford to be away from work for 3 weeks (the estimated length of the trial, which was civil and involved alleged corporate negligence). I will not participate in a corrupt system, if I can at all help it. I'm glad you got off too. Excelsior!

dionysusal said...

FSK, I can post the body of the letter I used so your blog readers can get out of jury duty whenever they want. State bureaucrat do not like people questioning their legitimacy.

And interestingly enough, in my trial the defendant's attorney (representing the corporation) used the "good morning!" trick, but the plaintiff's attorney didn't.

George Donnelly said...

You had a very unique opportunity to end the suffering of a fellow human being at the hands of the state, and all you could think of was a few days of salary? WTF.

dionysusal said...

FSK, sorry about yet another comment, but your blog entry today has me wound up since this is so fresh in my mind. Your comparison of the courtroom to a church is very apt. They made us all take an oath (reminiscent of when I was forced to go to church as a kid and they recited the so-called “lord’s prayer)-- it was nothing more than an oath to the goddamned four winds as far as I was concerned. I did not do it and was prepared to defend myself if confronted about it. But I was in the back so nobody “official” saw me I guess, although the girl (a hot tomato) next to me gave me a strange look. I would have flat out said I don’t believe in all this hocus pocus mumbo jumbo and that it was completely irrational. That might have saved me another 6 hours of torture. I also noticed that all of the “authoritays” there displayed what I would consider parasitic body language, and the people in the jury pool had abused-productive body language-- none of us wanted to be there. I would imagine my body language came across as that of a caged animal, because that’s what I felt like. I’ll bet they’ve never quite seen the likes of me before (although it seems like the ranks of the freedom-minded are growing every day).

Anonymous said...

I've seen the same thing -- a prolonged group question and answer period to filter the jurors attitudes. It's like the so called delphi technique applied to juries. It almost seems like jury tampering to me. You don't have to play along here. If the prosecutor asks why you are not playing in the group question and answer, ask them if they have a specific question they'd like to ask you. As far as the nullification business goes, you are not holding a deep dark legal secret. The lawyers and judge have seen this a million times, and are probably bored by you and your legal bombshell if anything, what happens is they let you go. During jury examination you can just follow along, keep your mouth shut, then vote any way you like if you happen to get on the jury.

Anonymous said...

FSK, would you nullify if somebody was trying for tax evasion?

FSK said...

I would nullify for tax evasion or any statutory crime.

Giving up $5k+ salary to help out a complete stranger seems like an unreasonable hardship. It's a corrupt system. It was a tough choice. I decided my goal was "Get dismissed!", but I might have changed my mind after seeing the defendant.

It's not my fault that my choice is "Help out some stranger at huge personal expense!" Besides, freedom-oriented people *NEVER* get picked for juries. When I was in grad school, the Math professors said they *NEVER* got picked to be on a jury.

I figured that I can give honest answers to the questions and taint the entire jury pool!

Anyway, I was dismissed without being questioned, so it's a moot point.

Actually, if the jurors are all "abused productive", that's a good sign! I can easily convince such a person to acquit me!

"Voir dire" is exactly jury tampering. It was instituted before the US Civil War to prevent nullification of fugitive slave laws. A jury should be 12 random people with no exceptions!

dionysusal said...

FSK, would you like me to post that letter?

FSK said...

You may post it if you want. Usually, I prefer people to post long things on their own blog and leave a comment with a link.

I heard two reasons the "sovereign citizen" argument "works".

- Judges are exasperated at the frequent frivolous argument.
- Judges don't want to admit that the State is a scam.

The "sovereign citizen" arguments hints at the fact that the State is a scam, but doesn't explicitly say "All taxation is theft! The Constitution is not a valid contract!"

JStrok said...

Excellent post. I myself was called in for jury duty during my state brainwashing detox period. At the time I was still in my period of 'limited gov could work just if we got enough people to write letters and call our congresspeople'.

Only if I was called in a week later I would have been fully educated in jury nullification. That would have been fun.

But I have to saw that sitting there and watching the judge and the lawyers in action was a completely sickening experience. The system is so completely stacked against the defendant. More so when they are poor or of a visible "lower class".

What made me particularly sick and really helped push along my detox was how they spent what seems like an eternity telling us how a cops evidence was no more or less valid and then imply for the rest of the trial how the cop was a superior witness.

Fortunately the defendant was let off. So I don't have regrets now for putting away a free man.

George Donnelly said...

FSK you come up with the greatest excuses.

dionysusal said...

The letter is not very big—only 1 printed page. I’ve reproduced it below. Statists think such arguments are frivolous exactly because they can’t separate the real from the unreal/illusory, so when confronted with something like that it seems frivolous to them due to it being at odds with their map of reality. Deep down they know the truth, though.

____________


Dear Sir or Madame:

I received your official jury summons in the mail. It included a form that I was instructed to fill in and bring with me when I reported for jury duty. I have questions about this form.

There is a space on the form for me to sign and date it. However, I have the following questions before I do so:

- Is my voluntary signature a necessary element to a properly completed jury questionnaire?

- Is my signature considered voluntary if offered under coercion and threat of incarceration?

In addition, one of the questions on the form asked if I was a citizen of the United States. I did some research and found the following:

- Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.
Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)

- The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.
Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

So, if the Constitution does indeed not require the state to provide law and order, then it doesn't require them to do anything. And logically, if there is no obligation to protect, then there is no reciprocal obligation of allegiance. Therefore, since there is no obligation of allegiance, I don't believe I am a citizen, but I didn't want to mark "No" for the answer until I could clear up my confusion.

Please respond to my concerns regarding your summons and we can proceed from there. Thank you in advance.

dionysusal said...

The letter is not very big—only 1 printed page. I’ve reproduced it below. Statists think such arguments are frivolous exactly because they can’t separate the real from the unreal/illusory, so when confronted with something like that it seems frivolous to them due to it being at odds with their map of reality. Deep down they know the truth, though.

_____________


Dear Sir or Madame:

I received your official jury summons in the mail. It included a form that I was instructed to fill in and bring with me when I reported for jury duty. I have questions about this form.

There is a space on the form for me to sign and date it. However, I have the following questions before I do so:

- Is my voluntary signature a necessary element to a properly completed jury questionnaire?

- Is my signature considered voluntary if offered under coercion and threat of incarceration?

In addition, one of the questions on the form asked if I was a citizen of the United States. I did some research and found the following:

- Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.
Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)

- The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.
Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

So, if the Constitution does indeed not require the state to provide law and order, then it doesn't require them to do anything. And logically, if there is no obligation to protect, then there is no reciprocal obligation of allegiance. Therefore, since there is no obligation of allegiance, I don't believe I am a citizen, but I didn't want to mark "No" for the answer until I could clear up my confusion.

Please respond to my concerns regarding your summons and we can proceed from there. Thank you in advance.

FSK said...

If you want a good laugh, try reading some judge's opinions or prosecution filings. When I read them now, I think "These are the insane rantings of an obvious lunatic."

Judges and lawyers are brainwashed to believe "If I chant the right magic words, then it's justice!" It's "cargo cult justice".

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.